Newark NJ, December 18, 2006

A 2003 study of education costs by the NJ Department of Education is so out-of-date and flawed that it should be scrapped. A new, comprehensive and independent study should be promptly commissioned, modeled on the $650,000 education cost study recently awarded by the Pennsylvania State Board of Education.

The call for a new cost study was made by ELC today at a public hearing on the DOE Cost Study at Burlington County College. The DOE kept the cost study secret for almost four years until finally releasing a partial report on the study on December 11th.

In a statement submitted to State Education Commissioner Lucille Davy, ELC Executive Director David Sciarra outlined five major reasons why the DOE study should be scrapped:

• • The Study is Out of Date: Because the study was done in early 2003, it fails to address many new changes and mandates under state law, the Abbott rulings, and the federal No Child Left Behind Act. These changes have a significant impact on the resources needed by schools and districts that must be accounted for in any new school funding formula.
• • The Study Was Not Professional: The DOE failed to follow accepted standards and procedures used in conducting costing out studies in other states, protocols which are essential to ensure comprehensive, independent and unbiased results.
• • The Study Used Hypothetical Districts: The DOE used "hypothetical" school district models as the basis for its cost study, models that are unlike real New Jersey school districts. The Supreme Court previously condemned using hypothetical districts to determine education costs.
• • The Study Base Cost is Below Current Actual Cost: The DOE determined $8500 per pupil as the cost of educating NJ students to meet State academic standards, almost $1700 per pupil below the current statewide average cost, and nearly $2500 per pupil below the cost in the successful suburban school districts. The Study fails to explain why its cost is so much lower than actual district cost, or why the districts’ cost is excessive.
• • The Study Uses Below Average, Not Successful, Districts: The DOE also came up with a $8500 base cost using a second method, called "successful school districts" (SSD). However, the DOE defines success by academic performance levels well below the state average, and not NJ’s successful suburban districts as the Supreme Court requires. By defining success as below average, DOE lowered the SSD base cost to match the cost derived from the hypothetical models.
• • The Study Shortchanges Low Income Students: The DOE developed a funding level to provide extra programs for low income students without taking into account the programs identified and required for poor urban students under Abbott. As a result, the DOE proposed funding level is inadequate to enable schools to provide drop out prevention, social and health services, security, instructional reform and other mandated initiatives.

In calling for a new study, ELC cites the cost study just authorized in Pennsylvania as a model for New Jersey to follow. The Pennsylvania study is designed to be comprehensive, independent and transparent, and take into account the unique needs of the Keystone State's rural, suburban and urban students and schools.

"The DOE Cost Study doesn't even come close to meeting the call by the Special Legislative Committee on School Funding Reform for a 'nationally recognized' study," said David Sciarra. "It's time to scrap this study, once and for all. If Pennsylvania can do an education cost study under 'nationally recognized' standards, so can we."